On "Why the Speed of Light is not constant."

[Keith Stein]

On 12/05/2019 02:59, Doctor Paparios wrote:

> .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result

No the experimental result , Doector,,,,,,is 'c+v'
where v is the velocity of
YOU <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the observer.

for consider:

Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.

A B
light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
tA tB

Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s

Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B

Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
= L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
= L/(tB-tA) + v
= c + v

keith stein

[maluw...@gmail.com]

> On 12/05/2019 02:59, Doctor Paparios wrote:
>
> > .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result

Surely it is not and even poor idiot Einstein was unable
to hold such an idiocy for long, so his GR shit is rejecting
it.

[Michael Moroney]

Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:


>On 12/05/2019 02:59, Doctor Paparios wrote:

> > .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result

>No the experimental result , Doector,,,,,,is 'c+v'
> where v is the velocity of
>YOU <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the observer.

<snip same old same old thought experiment>

No, that is a thought experiment, not an experimental result. A Gedanken.
Experimental results are MEASUREMENTS where scientists actually measure stuff.

A gedanken never proves anything. An example of the speed of light MEASUREMENT
very similar to your gedanken is Alvager et al which produces neutral pions moving
at a velocity v a substantial fraction of c, and they decay into two photons. If
light traveled at c+v these photons would be MEASURED as moving at speeds between
c-v and c+v. Guess what the measurements actually were?

Why did you start yet another topic with the same old thought experiment with the
same old flaws that others have already pointed out to you? Why do you try to
pass off your gedanken as an experimental result?

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 22 May 2019 14:07:21 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> >On 12/05/2019 02:59, Doctor Paparios wrote:
>
> > > .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result
>
> >No the experimental result , Doector,,,,,,is 'c+v'
> > where v is the velocity of
> >YOU <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the observer.
>
>
> <snip same old same old thought experiment>
>
> No, that is a thought experiment, not an experimental result. A Gedanken.
> Experimental results are MEASUREMENTS where scientists actually measure stuff.

A lie, as expected from a fanatic moron.
And when your insane guru mumbled his bullshit first time,
current definition of second was making it impossible
to happen. If you hadn't changed them (some decades
later) ESPECIALLY to meet your moronic ideology tou
would never have any measurements matching it.

[Keith Stein]

On 22/05/2019 13:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:

>> YOU <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the observer.

> <snip same old same old .....................

[Sylvia Else]

And you've also been told before that in the YOU frame, the time light
takes for the journey is not tB - tA. That's the time it takes in the
frame of the lab. You're assuming that time is frame independent.

Sylvia.

[Michael Moroney]

Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:

>On 22/05/2019 13:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:


>>> YOU <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the observer.

>> <snip same old same old .....................



>for consider:

<snip same old same old thought experiment AGAIN>

Doesn't matter how many times you repost it.

1) It's still a gedanken and NOT an experimental result.
2) Others have already pointed out the flaws in your gedanken, in
particular your assumption the time in the YOU frame is also tB - tA.

Pretty deceptive of you to claim a disproven gedanken is an experimental
result, eh!

[Keith Stein]

On 22/05/2019 14:45, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/05/2019 10:47 pm, Keith Stein wrote:

>>                                  = c + v

......................

> And you've also been told before that in the YOU frame, the time light
> takes for the journey is not tB - tA. That's the time it takes in the
> frame of the lab. You're assuming that time is frame independent.
>
> Sylvia.

Yes indeed Sylvia, we seem to be destined to go in some sort of
endless loop.......

.so here we go again.............
On 13/05/2019 07:38, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 13/05/2019 4:06 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 13/05/2019 04:22, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2019 12:10 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 12/05/2019 13:23, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 12/05/2019 8:03 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/05/2019 09:34, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/05/2019 3:24 pm, Keith Stein wrote:

>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2019 02:59, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> No the experimental result is 'c+v'
>>>>>>>> where v is the velocity of the observer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Consider
>>>>>>>> any determination of the one way speed of light in any

laboratory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A B
>>>>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>>>>>>>> tA tB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>>>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>>>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>>>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels
from A to B
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>>>>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>>>>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>>>>>>> = c + v
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> That's not an experiment, that's a description of one, together
with a description of how you think it would turn out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed it is a description of an experiment, and if 'YOU' walking
>>>>>> towards the clocks does not affect the readings on those clocks,
>>>>>> as they record the time at which light passes A and B i.e. TA
and TB,
>>>>>> then we can be 100% certain that that is how it would turn out
Sylvia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you think the experiment would turn out eh?
>>>>
>>>>> You're assuming that time for "You" is tB - tA. You have no
reason to make that assumption. If "You" measure that time, "You" will
find that it is not tB - tA.
>>>>
>>>> How do you propose to measure the time the light arrives at points A
>>>> and B without utilizing clocks situated at points A and B Sylvia ?
>>>
>>> I'd have two clocks, labelled YouA and YouB, stationary relative to
"YOU" and synchronized in the "YOU" frame, They would be positioned
such that YouA passes A when the light passes A, and YouB passes B when
the light passes B. I would then divide the difference in times shown by
the clocks when they pass the two points, by the distance between them
as measured in the "YOU" frame.
>>
>> How do you arrange that the clock YouA passes point A at exactly the
same instant that the light reaches point A, and how do you know it did?
>
> It's not exactly difficult. I'd just calculate the required
positions. If you don't like that, it could be done by a process of
trial and error using a binary cut, or similar, technique.
>
> As for knowing that I'd done it correctly, if we assume that we're
using a short pulse of light, then just reflect a bit of light off the
beam sideways at A and B. If the clock arrives there at the correct
time, it will see pulse in the reflection. If it arrives at the wrong
time, it won't.
>
> You'll probably argue that you weren't intending that it be a pulse,
but it has to be something other than a continuous beam, or you can't
determine when it reaches A and B anyway.
>
> You seem to think that just because you cannot envisage a way of
doing something, that thing cannot be done.
>
>> Can you give a reference to any experiment ever performed in this way ?
>> Of course you can't, because as you must surely know Sylvia your
proposed experimental technique is totally impractical - silly even.
>
> No, of course I can't - as you say, it's completely impractical, as
it was from the moment you described it. But it's hardly reasonable for
you to propose that an impractical experiment that will allegedly prove
you position, and then complain about the impracticality when the
experimental protocol is corrected in a way that undermines your argument.
>
>>
>> > The result would be the speed of light in the "YOU" frame.
>>
>> And as we both know Sylvia, if the technique was feasible, which it
isn't, the result would be 'c', because you synchronized the clocks
>> in the "YOU" frame by ASSUMING the velocity of light was 'c' eh!
>
> I'd probably just position them together at the mid-point between
their eventual positions in the "YOU" frame, synchronized them, and them
move them slowly to the positions required for the measurements. In your
world, they would definitely remain synchronized, so unless you want to
argue that they wouldn't, that settles the matter.

>
>>
>>
>> >>>>>> On 12/05/2019 02:59, Paparios wrote:
>> >>>>>>> .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result
>>

>> Anyway i do thank you for your efforts Sylvia, and making it very
>> clear that what Dr.Paparious should have said was:
>>
>> "IF CLOCKS ARE SYNCHRONIZED BY ASSUMING THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IS c,
>> then, in the frame of reference in which those clocks have been
>> synchronized, those clocks will indicate the speed of light is c."
>
> The statement is true, but it's not the only way to synchronize
clocks in a frame, and not all ways involve assumptions about the speed
of light.
>
>>
>> which is hardly an "experimental result" as he claimed, is it Sylvia ?
>
> I don't know whether he claimed it to be an experimental result or
not, but it doesn't seem relevant to this discussion either way.


On 13/05/2019 07:38, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 13/05/2019 4:06 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 13/05/2019 04:22, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2019 12:10 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 12/05/2019 13:23, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 12/05/2019 8:03 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/05/2019 09:34, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/05/2019 3:24 pm, Keith Stein wrote:

>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2019 02:59, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result

No the experimental result is 'c + v' Sylvia..see above eh!

keith stein

[Keith Stein]

On 22/05/2019 15:06, Michael Moroney wrote:

> <snip same old same old thought experiment AGAIN>

If YOU walk towards the light Michael, then you will
find it is no longer just a "thought" experiment eh!

[Paparios]

For sure, you have never been close to a physics laboratory, so your nonsense
about how to measure the speed of light is just that: nonsense from an
ignorant troll.

You are too old to learn physics, so just rest off and enjoy what it is left from
your life

[Michael Moroney]

Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:

>On 22/05/2019 15:06, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> <snip same old same old thought experiment AGAIN>


>If YOU walk towards the light Michael, then you will
>find it is no longer just a "thought" experiment eh!

Yet without doing the experiment, it remains just a gedanken.

A gedanken NEVER proves anything. The uses for a gedanken are either
as a teaching tool, to explain a concept that may not be easy to understand
or as a proposal for an experiment to be conducted.

Any claim for a gedanken such as 'If YOU walk towards the light Michael, then you
will find it is no longer just a "thought" experiment eh!' is INVALID. You MUST
actually perform the experiment to get the actual results.

Regardless: Similar experiments HAVE been done, repeatedly, and the results of the
experiments are the speed of light in the YOU frame are measured as being c, and
NOT c+v.

You made an invalid assumption, which has been pointed out to you by others MANY
MANY TIMES, yet you ignore your mistake and repeat your invalid gedanken.
That's quite dishonest of you, eh!

<snip invalid gedanken yet again>

[Keith Stein]

On 22/05/2019 15:54, Paparios wrote:
> El miércoles, 22 de mayo de 2019, 7:08:03 (UTC-4), Keith Stein escribió:
>> On 12/05/2019 02:59, Doctor Paparios wrote:
>>
>> > .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result
>>
>> No the experimental result , Doector,,,,,,is 'c+v'
>> where v is the velocity of
>> YOU <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the observer.
>>
>> for consider:
>>
>> Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>>
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>
>> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time

>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)y

>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>> = c + v
>>

> ............... so just rest off and enjoy what it is left from
> your life


but what i really enjoy is our little chats on sci.physics.relativity


What should i do ?
do you think Doctor?

keith stein

[Paparios]

It is OK with me. Many here are just for the fun of seeing people like you
writing nonsense and making total fools of themselves.

[Keith Stein]

On 22/05/2019 16:19, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 22/05/2019 15:06, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>>> <snip same old same old thought experiment AGAIN>

If YOU walk towards the light Michael, then you will
find it is no longer just a "thought" experiment eh!

for consider:

Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.

A B
light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
tA tB

Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s

Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B

Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
= L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
= L/(tB-tA) + v
= c + v

> Regardless: Similar experiments HAVE been done, repeatedly, and the results of the
> experiments are the speed of light in the YOU frame are measured as being c, and
> NOT c+v.

Please give a reference to ANY similar experiment which found

"the results of the experiments are the speed of light in the YOU frame
are measured as being c, and NOT c+v."

In fact EVERY similar experiment has found 'c+v', so i already
know you will not be able to give even one reference to support
your claim, Michael.

keith stein

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Stop playing a smart one, poor idiot. You don't even know
the basic definitions of your cult.

[Michael Moroney]

Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:

>On 22/05/2019 16:19, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 22/05/2019 15:06, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>>>> <snip same old same old thought experiment AGAIN>

>If YOU walk towards the light Michael, then you will

<snip same old same old thought experiment YET AGAIN>

Repeating your flawed gedanken over and over and over won't fix it.

>> Regardless: Similar experiments HAVE been done, repeatedly, and the results of the
>> experiments are the speed of light in the YOU frame are measured as being c, and
>> NOT c+v.

>Please give a reference to ANY similar experiment which found

Asked and answered.

Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964)
Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964)

Both measure the speeds of gammas from decay of pi0 mesons. In one they move
at 0.2c the other ~0.99975c.

>"the results of the experiments are the speed of light in the YOU frame
> are measured as being c, and NOT c+v."

>In fact EVERY similar experiment has found 'c+v', so i already
>know you will not be able to give even one reference to support
> your claim, Michael.

Name ANY of the "EVERY similar experiment". Just one. You can't.

You are assuming your conclusion.

[Michael Moroney]

Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> writes:

>> but what i really enjoy is our little chats on sci.physics.relativity

>> What should i do ?
>> do you think Doctor?

>It is OK with me. Many here are just for the fun of seeing people like you
>writing nonsense and making total fools of themselves.

Very true. For some reason I also find it fascinating to watch the likes of
Keith Stein make fools of themselves arguing about stuff they simply don't
understand.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 22 May 2019 18:14:12 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> writes:
>
> >> but what i really enjoy is our little chats on sci.physics.relativity
>
> >> What should i do ?
> >> do you think Doctor?
>
> >It is OK with me. Many here are just for the fun of seeing people like you
> >writing nonsense and making total fools of themselves.
>
> Very true.

No. A lie, as expected from a pair of fanatic morons.

[Michael Moroney]

And just how do you know what Paparios and I do and don't enjoy?

I also enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself, however you need new
material since you are very repetitive.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 22 May 2019 18:44:20 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> maluw...@gmail.com writes:
>
> >On Wednesday, 22 May 2019 18:14:12 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> writes:
> >>
> >> >> but what i really enjoy is our little chats on sci.physics.relativity
> >>
> >> >> What should i do ?
> >> >> do you think Doctor?
> >>
> >> >It is OK with me. Many here are just for the fun of seeing people like you
> >> >writing nonsense and making total fools of themselves.
> >>
> >> Very true.
>
> >No. A lie, as expected from a pair of fanatic morons.
>
> And just how do you know what Paparios and I do and don't enjoy?

It's not for your tiny half-brain how a human knows
something, sorry.

> I also enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself

A lie, as expected from a fanatic moron.

[Odd Bodkin]

I think you will find that some people are here just for the oppositional
dialogue.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Oh, surely, an idiot rejecting common sense is able to find
just anything.

[Keith Stein]

On 22/05/2019 17:08, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 22/05/2019 16:19, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 22/05/2019 15:06, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> <snip same old same old thought experiment AGAIN>
>
>> If YOU walk towards the light Michael, then you will
>
> <snip same old same old thought experiment YET AGAIN>

Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.

A B
light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
tA tB

Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s

Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B

Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
= L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
= L/(tB-tA) + v
= c + v

>

> Repeating your flawed gedanken over and over and over won't fix it.

The real reason it can't be fixed, Michael, is because it ain't broke.

>>> Regardless: Similar experiments HAVE been done, repeatedly, and the results of the
>>> experiments are the speed of light in the YOU frame are measured as being c, and
>>> NOT c+v.
>
>> Please give a reference to ANY similar experiment which found

> and the results of the
>>> experiments are the speed of light in the YOU frame are measured as being c, and
>>> NOT c+v.

> Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964)
> Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964)
>
> Both measure the speeds of gammas from decay of pi0 mesons. In one they move
> at 0.2c the other ~0.99975c.

Are you certain it was the observer that was moving at these speeds !!! ?
Of course the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source,
water waves, and sound waves are also independent of the speed of the
source, but NOT independent of the speed of the observer eh!

>> "the results of the experiments are the speed of light in the YOU frame
>> are measured as being c, and NOT c+v."
>
>> In fact EVERY similar experiment has found 'c+v', so i already
>> know you will not be able to give even one reference to support
>> your claim, Michael.
>
> Name ANY of the "EVERY similar experiment". Just one. You can't.
>
> You are assuming your conclusion.

and you Mr.Moroney, like many relativists, can't see the difference
between the motion of the SOURCE, and the motion of THE OBSERVER,<-YOU

if YOU can't see the "medium" , then
YOU can't see the difference Michael.

j.C. Maxwell told you Michael, "A MEDIUM NECESSARY",
what i am telling you Michael is Maxwell was right !

about that at least, but in general i'm sure he must
of been just as fallible as you or i Michael.

keith stein

[Michael Moroney]

Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:

> > Repeating your flawed gedanken over and over and over won't fix it.

>The real reason it can't be fixed, Michael, is because it ain't broke.

It most certainly is broke, a zillion experiments show that.

>>>> Regardless: Similar experiments HAVE been done, repeatedly, and the results of the
>>>> experiments are the speed of light in the YOU frame are measured as being c, and
>>>> NOT c+v.
>>
>>> Please give a reference to ANY similar experiment which found

>> and the results of the
>>>> experiments are the speed of light in the YOU frame are measured as being c, and
>>>> NOT c+v.
>> Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964)
>> Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964)
>>
>> Both measure the speeds of gammas from decay of pi0 mesons. In one they move
>> at 0.2c the other ~0.99975c.

>Are you certain it was the observer that was moving at these speeds !!! ?

Yes, in the frame of the pion the observer is moving at up to .99975c!

>Of course the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source,

And of the observer.

>>> "the results of the experiments are the speed of light in the YOU frame
>>> are measured as being c, and NOT c+v."
>>
>>> In fact EVERY similar experiment has found 'c+v', so i already
>>> know you will not be able to give even one reference to support
>>> your claim, Michael.
>>
>> Name ANY of the "EVERY similar experiment". Just one. You can't.

Well? I am waiting...

>and you Mr.Moroney, like many relativists, can't see the difference
>between the motion of the SOURCE, and the motion of THE OBSERVER,<-YOU

Theory of RELATIVITY. Repeat that word "RELATIVITY" over and over and over
until you understand what it means!

>j.C. Maxwell told you Michael, "A MEDIUM NECESSARY",
>what i am telling you Michael is Maxwell was right !

So you believe Maxwell was right when he wrote:
"There is always, however, enough of matter left to receive and transmit the
undulations of light and heat, and it is because the transmission of these
radiations is not greatly altered when transparent bodies of measurable density are
substituted for the so-called vacuum, that we are obliged to admit that the
undulations are those of an ethereal substance, and not of the gross matter, the
presence of which merely modifies in some way the motion of the ether."

In other words, Maxwell's medium was definitely NOT ordinary (gross) matter?
Ordinary matter merely modifies the actual medium?

>about that at least, but in general i'm sure he must
>of been just as fallible as you or i Michael.

Well, Maxwell did believe in the aether, which we now know doesn't exist (or at
least nas no effect whatsoever).

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 22 May 2019 20:11:20 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > Repeating your flawed gedanken over and over and over won't fix it.
>
> >The real reason it can't be fixed, Michael, is because it ain't broke.
>
> It most certainly is broke, a zillion experiments show that.

When you're a fanatic moron everything is showing you you're
right.

[Schäfer Brinkerhoff]

that "zillion" usually is less than a 0.5.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 22.05.2019 14.47, skrev Keith Stein:
>
> for consider:
>
> Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>
>                 A                  B
>     light-----><--------L---------->         <--YOU v m/s
>                tA                  tB
>
>  Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>
>  Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>  Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>  and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>  which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>
>  Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>                                 = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>                                 = L/(tB-tA) + v
>                                 = c + v
>
> keith stein
>
>

This is experimentally proven to be false.

https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

Previously you have accused the following physicists for fraud:
A.A.Michelson, R.J.Kennedy, E.M.Thorndike, G.C.Babcock,
T.G.Bergman, T.Alväger, F.J.M.Farley, I.Wallin, P.Beckman,
P.Mandics, T.A.Filippas, J.G.Fox and K.Brecher.

That didn't make the experimental evidence go away.
Frustrating, isn't it, eh?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Keith Stein]

>>
>> Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>>
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>
>> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)y
>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>> = c + v
>>

On 22/05/2019 18:07, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>> Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> writes:

Look ^^^ Three Wise Men, from the West. Maybe it's my birthday eh!
What gifts do they bring ???

>>> It is OK with me. Many here are just for the fun of seeing people like you
>>> writing nonsense and making total fools of themselves.
>>
>> Very true. For some reason I also find it fascinating to watch the likes of
>> Keith Stein make fools of themselves arguing about stuff they simply don't
>> understand.
>>
> I think you will find that some people are here just for the oppositional
> dialogue.

No! No! No!, Mr.Bodkin, but then i should not be ungrateful eh!
for my three gifts !!!.(and every one a gift beyond price.... :)


keith stein

[Keith Stein]

On 22/05/2019 19:35, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 22.05.2019 14.47, skrev Keith Stein:
>>
>> for consider:
>>
>> Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>
>>                  A                  B
>>      light-----><--------L---------->         <--YOU v m/s
>>                 tA                  tB
>>
>>   Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>>   Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>   Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>   and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>   which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>
>>   Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>                                  = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>                                  = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>                                  = c + v
>>
>> keith stein
>>
>>
>
> This is experimentally proven to be false.

On the contrary Mr.Andersen, everyone who repeats the above experiment,
always gets the same result of 'c+v'. No way the couldn't Mr.Andersen.

> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>
> Previously you have accused the following physicists for fraud:
> A.A.Michelson, R.J.Kennedy, E.M.Thorndike, G.C.Babcock,
> T.G.Bergman, T.Alväger, F.J.M.Farley, I.Wallin, P.Beckman,
> P.Mandics, T.A.Filippas, J.G.Fox and K.Brecher.

YOU LIE, MR.ANDERSEN !

I have accused NONE OF THE ABOVE OF FRAUD, Mr.Andersen,most of them
i have never even heard of, and wouldn't dream of accusing them of
fraud, or indeed anything.

O.t.o.h. I have accused Mssrs.Hafele and Keating of FRAUD, because the
HK result as reported in current physics text books, is indeed a FRAUD,
as anyone who looks at the raw data would surely see for themselves, Mr.
Andersen.

keith stein

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, 22 May 2019 20:36:00 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 22.05.2019 14.47, skrev Keith Stein:
> >
> > for consider:
> >
> > Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
> >
> >                 A                  B
> >     light-----><--------L---------->         <--YOU v m/s
> >                tA                  tB
> >
> >  Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
> >
> >  Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
> >  Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
> >  and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
> >  which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
> >
> >  Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
> >                                 = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
> >                                 = L/(tB-tA) + v
> >                                 = c + v
> >
> > keith stein
> >
> >
>
> This is experimentally proven to be false.

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.

> That didn't make the experimental evidence go away.
> Frustrating, isn't it, eh?

Not at all. Just an idiot believing that his
nonsenses have evidence.

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 4:08:03 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
> = L/(tB-tA) + v
> = c + v
>
> keith stein

Cretin. Stubborn. Stubborn Cretin, a toxic combination.

[Sylvia Else]

On 23/05/2019 12:31 am, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 22/05/2019 14:45, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 22/05/2019 10:47 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>                                  = c + v
>
>  ......................
>> And you've also been told before that in the YOU frame, the time light
>> takes for the journey is not tB - tA. That's the time it takes in the
>> frame of the lab. You're assuming that time is frame independent.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Yes indeed Sylvia, we seem to be destined to go in some sort of
> endless loop.......

Why are you making that assumption?

Sylvia.

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/05/2019 9:08 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 12/05/2019 02:59, Doctor Paparios wrote:
>
> > .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result
>
> No the experimental result , Doector,,,,,,is   'c+v'
>                             where v is the velocity of
> YOU <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the observer.
>

> for consider:
>
> Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>
>                 A                  B
>     light-----><--------L---------->         <--YOU v m/s
>                tA                  tB
>
>  Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>
>  Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>  Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>  and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>  which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>

>  Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>                                 = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>                                 = L/(tB-tA) + v
>                                 = c + v
>
> keith stein
>

All your analysis demonstrates is that if time and distance are frame
independent, then the speed of light is not.

Special relativity shows that if the speed of light is frame
independent, then time and distance are not.

Since these two statements do not contradict each other, nothing about
either one of them can tells us anything about the other.

Either one (or neither) could be a correct description of the universe
we live in. To decide which, we have to rely on experiments. Experiments
indicate that the speed of light is frame independent, thus falling on
the side of special relativity.

Your attempts to show that special relativity is wrong by thought
experiments are an exercise in futility, not because special relativity
is necessarily right, but because your approach is fundamentally
misconceived at a mathematical level. Regardless of whether special
relativity is correct or not, you could never refute it this way.

Sylvia

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 23 May 2019 04:02:39 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Either one (or neither) could be a correct description of the universe
> we live in. To decide which, we have to rely on experiments. Experiments
> indicate that the speed of light is frame independent, thus falling on
> the side of special relativity.

A lie, sorry. The experiments indicate that time (as
defined by Your insane guru himself) is galilean with the
precision of an acceptable error.

[Keith Stein]

> On 23/05/2019 12:31 am, Keith Stein wrote:

>> endless loop.......

On 13/05/2019 07:38, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 13/05/2019 4:06 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 13/05/2019 04:22, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2019 12:10 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 12/05/2019 13:23, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>> On 12/05/2019 8:03 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/05/2019 09:34, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/05/2019 3:24 pm, Keith Stein wrote:

>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2019 02:59, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> No the experimental result is 'c+v'
>>>>>>>> where v is the velocity of the observer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Consider
>>>>>>>> any determination of the one way speed of light in any

>>>>>>>> laboratory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A B
>>>>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>>>>>>>> tA tB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>>>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>>>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>>>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from
>>>>>>>> A to B
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>>>>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>>>>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>>>>>>> = c + v
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> That's not an experiment, that's a description of one, together
>>>>>>> with a description of how you think it would turn out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed it is a description of an experiment, and if 'YOU' walking
>>>>>> towards the clocks does not affect the readings on those clocks,
>>>>>> as they record the time at which light passes A and B i.e. TA
and TB,
>>>>>> then we can be 100% certain that that is how it would turn out
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you think the experiment would turn out eh?
>>>>
>>>>> You're assuming that time for "You" is tB - tA. You have no reason
>>>>> to make that assumption. If "You" measure that time, "You" will
>>>>> find that it is not tB - tA.
>>>>
>>>> How do you propose to measure the time the light arrives at points A
>>>> and B without utilizing clocks situated at points A and B Sylvia ?
>>>
>>> I'd have two clocks, labelled YouA and YouB, stationary relative to
>>> "YOU" and synchronized in the "YOU" frame, They would be positioned
>>> such that YouA passes A when the light passes A, and YouB passes B
>>> when the light passes B. I would then divide the difference in times
>>> shown by the clocks when they pass the two points, by the distance
>>> between them as measured in the "YOU" frame.
>>
>> How do you arrange that the clock YouA passes point A at exactly the
>> same instant that the light reaches point A, and how do you know it did?
>
> It's not exactly difficult. I'd just calculate the required positions.
> If you don't like that, it could be done by a process of trial and error
> using a binary cut, or similar, technique.
>
> As for knowing that I'd done it correctly, if we assume that we're using
> a short pulse of light, then just reflect a bit of light off the beam
> sideways at A and B. If the clock arrives there at the correct time, it
> will see pulse in the reflection. If it arrives at the wrong time, it
> won't.
>
> You'll probably argue that you weren't intending that it be a pulse, but
> it has to be something other than a continuous beam, or you can't
> determine when it reaches A and B anyway.
>
> You seem to think that just because you cannot envisage a way of doing
> something, that thing cannot be done.
>
>> Can you give a reference to any experiment ever performed in this way ?
>> Of course you can't, because as you must surely know Sylvia your
>> proposed experimental technique is totally impractical - silly even.
>
> No, of course I can't - as you say, it's completely impractical, as it
> was from the moment you described it. But it's hardly reasonable for you
> to propose that an impractical experiment that will allegedly prove you
> position, and then complain about the impracticality when the
> experimental protocol is corrected in a way that undermines your
argument.
>
>>
>> > The result would be the speed of light in the "YOU" frame.
>>
>> And as we both know Sylvia, if the technique was feasible, which it
>> isn't, the result would be 'c', because you synchronized the clocks
>> in the "YOU" frame by ASSUMING the velocity of light was 'c' eh!
>
> I'd probably just position them together at the mid-point between their
> eventual positions in the "YOU" frame, synchronized them, and them move
> them slowly to the positions required for the measurements. In your
> world, they would definitely remain synchronized, so unless you want to
> argue that they wouldn't, that settles the matter.

>
>>
>>
>> >>>>>> On 12/05/2019 02:59, Paparios wrote:
>> >>>>>>> .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result
>>

>> Anyway i do thank you for your efforts Sylvia, and making it very
>> clear that what Dr.Paparious should have said was:
>>
>> "IF CLOCKS ARE SYNCHRONIZED BY ASSUMING THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IS c,
>> then, in the frame of reference in which those clocks have been
>> synchronized, those clocks will indicate the speed of light is c."
>
> The statement is true, but it's not the only way to synchronize clocks
> in a frame, and not all ways involve assumptions about the speed of
light.
>
>>
>> which is hardly an "experimental result" as he claimed, is it Sylvia ?
>
> I don't know whether he claimed it to be an experimental result or not,
> but it doesn't seem relevant to this discussion either way.
>
> Sylvia

>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2019 02:59, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result
>>>>>>>>

No the experimental result is 'c+v'..........etc.,etc......

[Keith Stein]

On 23/05/2019 03:02, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 22/05/2019 9:08 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> On 12/05/2019 02:59, Doctor Paparios wrote:
>>
>>  > .. the constant speed of light is an experimental result
>>

>> No the experimental result , Doctor,,,,,,is   'c+v'

No the experimental result , Sylvia, is 'c+v'

Read again from the top, and repeat until convinced eh! :)

keith stein

[Sylvia Else]

I take it you understood nothing of what I wrote. Either that or you're
just trolling, and always have been.

Sylvia.

[Michael Moroney]

Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:

>> All your analysis demonstrates is that if time and distance are frame
>> independent, then the speed of light is not.
>>
>> Special relativity shows that if the speed of light is frame
>> independent, then time and distance are not.
>>
>> Since these two statements do not contradict each other, nothing about
>> either one of them can tells us anything about the other.
>>
>> Either one (or neither) could be a correct description of the universe
>> we live in. To decide which, we have to rely on experiments. Experiments
>> indicate that the speed of light is frame independent,

>No the experimental result , Sylvia, is 'c+v'

Wrong. Experimental results are the results of experiments, eh!

Experimental results are NOT what you think the results should be, they are NOT the
'result' of a flawed gedanken, nor the only result you think could be, must be, want
it to be, has to be and so forth. They are the results of actual experiments, no
more, no less.

Sometimes experimental results surprise everyone. The Michelson-Morley experiment,
for example. However, in this case, you are WELL over a century behind the times.
Light known as NOT being measured at c+v was a major motivation behind Einstein's
1905 SR paper. Why not catch up to the 20th century, eh!

Also: I am still awaiting for any example of "EVERY similar experiment" agreeing
with you. Again, just one, eh!

:>In fact EVERY similar experiment has found 'c+v', so i already

:>know you will not be able to give even one reference to support
:> your claim, Michael.

:Name ANY of the "EVERY similar experiment". Just one. You can't.

I'm waiting.....

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 23 May 2019 08:29:34 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> All your analysis demonstrates is that if time and distance are frame
> >> independent, then the speed of light is not.
> >>
> >> Special relativity shows that if the speed of light is frame
> >> independent, then time and distance are not.
> >>
> >> Since these two statements do not contradict each other, nothing about
> >> either one of them can tells us anything about the other.
> >>
> >> Either one (or neither) could be a correct description of the universe
> >> we live in. To decide which, we have to rely on experiments. Experiments
> >> indicate that the speed of light is frame independent,
>
> >No the experimental result , Sylvia, is 'c+v'
>
> Wrong. Experimental results are the results of experiments, eh!

Not the results of brilliant gedankens of your idiot guru, eh!

> Sometimes experimental results surprise everyone.

No, poor idiot. They can only surprise dumbies
like you.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Sylvia, the problem is not that what You write is
incredibly wise and advenced. It's just Your imagination.
The problem is that it is completely worthless.

[Sylvia Else]

On 23/05/2019 4:29 pm, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> All your analysis demonstrates is that if time and distance are frame
>>> independent, then the speed of light is not.
>>>
>>> Special relativity shows that if the speed of light is frame
>>> independent, then time and distance are not.
>>>
>>> Since these two statements do not contradict each other, nothing about
>>> either one of them can tells us anything about the other.
>>>
>>> Either one (or neither) could be a correct description of the universe
>>> we live in. To decide which, we have to rely on experiments. Experiments
>>> indicate that the speed of light is frame independent,
>
>> No the experimental result , Sylvia, is 'c+v'
>
> Wrong. Experimental results are the results of experiments, eh!
>
> Experimental results are NOT what you think the results should be, they are NOT the
> 'result' of a flawed gedanken, nor the only result you think could be, must be, want
> it to be, has to be and so forth. They are the results of actual experiments, no
> more, no less.

Further, his thought experiment could not produce the result he predicts
even if he were right about the speed of light, and the experiment were
done for real, because the proposed experimental protocol doesn't
measure the things that would need to be measured.

Sylvia.

[Gary Harnagel]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 11:15:58 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein lied:

>
> No the experimental result is 'c+v'..........etc.,etc......

Lying does not become you. There are NO such experimental results.

Meanwhile, the LLR experiments confirm that the solar wind does NOT contribute
to the speed of light, which means that your vacuous assertion is refuted.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 22.05.2019 21.07, skrev Keith Stein:
> On 22/05/2019 19:35, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 22.05.2019 14.47, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>
>>> Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>>
>>>                  A                  B
>>>      light-----><--------L---------->         <--YOU v m/s
>>>                 tA                  tB
>>>
>>>   Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>>
>>>   Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>>   Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>>   and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>>   which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>>
>>>   Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>>                                  = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>>                                  = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>>                                  = c + v
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is experimentally proven to be false.
>
> On the contrary Mr.Andersen, everyone who repeats the above experiment,
> always gets the same result of 'c+v'. No way the couldn't Mr.Andersen.

You claim that everyone who make an experiment
testing if the speed of light is invariant must
find that it is not.

But all the following experiments show that
the speed of light is invariant.

>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >>
>> Previously you have accused the following physicists for fraud:
>> A.A.Michelson, R.J.Kennedy, E.M.Thorndike, G.C.Babcock,
>> T.G.Bergman, T.Alväger, F.J.M.Farley, I.Wallin, P.Beckman,
>> P.Mandics, T.A.Filippas, J.G.Fox and K.Brecher.
>
> YOU LIE, MR.ANDERSEN !
>
> I have accused NONE OF THE ABOVE OF FRAUD, Mr.Andersen,most of them
> i have never even heard of, and wouldn't dream of accusing them of
> fraud, or indeed anything.

OK, Keith.
Since you admit that you haven't even heard of
many of the physicist above, I will assume that you do
not claim that the experiments show what you think
is impossible because the physicist are fraudulent,
but that you simply are ignorant of the existence
of the experiments.

So I retract my accusation and beg your pardon.

But now when you are made aware of the existence
of the experimental evidence that prove your claim
wrong, and have got references to much of the evidence,
I am sure you must understand that you are wrong.

Or don't you Keith?
In that case, how can you keep ignoring the experimental
evidence made by the physicists you never would dream
of accusing of fraud?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Unfortunately, they only show that to brainwashed
fanatic morons, mr Anderson.

[Keith Stein]

Not one of them shows that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the observer, Mr.Andersen. They actually show
that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source.
This is exactly what i would expect, of course. The speed of light
is appropriate to and relative to the matter it travels through,
just as Maxwell theory predicts.

>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >>
>>> Previously you have accused the following physicists for fraud:
>>> A.A.Michelson, R.J.Kennedy, E.M.Thorndike, G.C.Babcock,
>>> T.G.Bergman, T.Alväger, F.J.M.Farley, I.Wallin, P.Beckman,
>>> P.Mandics, T.A.Filippas, J.G.Fox and K.Brecher.
>>
>> YOU LIE, MR.ANDERSEN !
>>
>> I have accused NONE OF THE ABOVE OF FRAUD, Mr.Andersen,most of them
>> i have never even heard of, and wouldn't dream of accusing them of
>> fraud, or indeed anything.
>
> OK, Keith.
> Since you admit that you haven't even heard of
> many of the physicist above, I will assume that you do
> not claim that the experiments show what you think
> is impossible because the physicist are fraudulent,
> but that you simply are ignorant of the existence
> of the experiments.

Every one of your references shows that the speed of light
is independent of the speed of the SOURCE, exactly as i would
expect.

> So I retract my accusation and beg your pardon.

Granted.

> But now when you are made aware of the existence
> of the experimental evidence that prove your claim
> wrong, and have got references to much of the evidence,
> I am sure you must understand that you are wrong.
>
> Or don't you Keith?
> In that case, how can you keep ignoring the experimental
> evidence made by the physicists you never would dream
> of accusing of fraud?

Clearly you don't have even one experiment which shows the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the OBSERVER,
and if you perform the one i describe at the start of this
post Paul, you will discover that it isn't.

keith stein

[Keith Stein]

On 23/05/2019 12:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 11:15:58 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein lied:
>>
>> No the experimental result is 'c+v'..........etc.,etc......

>>>>>>>> any determination of the one way speed of light in any
>>>>>>>> laboratory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A B
>>>>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>>>>>>>> tA tB
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>>>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>>>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>>>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from
>>>>>>>> A to B
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>>>>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>>>>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>>>>>>> = c + v

>

> Lying does not become you. There are NO such experimental results.

Try it yourself Gary. You will get c+v, same as everyone who doesthis
experiment eh!

keith stein

[Odd Bodkin]

Let’s see if you know what doing an experimental measurement means. How
about you explain how you would go about measuring c’, the speed of light
as measured by you as you walk, the quantity you claim is c+v.

Note that the measurement must not entail doing any kind of sum or involve
doing a Galilean transform.


>
> keith stein

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, 23 May 2019 19:17:11 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 23/05/2019 12:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 11:15:58 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein lied:
> >>>
> >>> No the experimental result is 'c+v'..........etc.,etc......
> >
> >>>>>>>>> any determination of the one way speed of light in any
> >>>>>>>>> laboratory.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A B
> >>>>>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
> >>>>>>>>> tA tB
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
> >>>>>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
> >>>>>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
> >>>>>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from
> >>>>>>>>> A to B
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
> >>>>>>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
> >>>>>>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
> >>>>>>>>> = c + v
> >
> >>
> >> Lying does not become you. There are NO such experimental results.
> >
> > Try it yourself Gary. You will get c+v, same as everyone who doesthis
> > experiment eh!
>
> Let’s see if you know what doing an experimental measurement means.

Of course, in the Jargon of modern physics it means:
"let's calculate it with the formulas of our beloved
Shit and announce it matches!"

[Keith Stein]

On 23/05/2019 18:17, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> any determination of the one way speed of light in any
>>>>>>>>>> laboratory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A B
>>>>>>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>>>>>>>>>> tA tB
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>>>>>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>>>>>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>>>>>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from
>>>>>>>>>> A to B
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>>>>>>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>>>>>>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>>>>>>>>> = c + v

> Let’s see if you know what doing an experimental measurement means. How
> about you explain how you would go about measuring c’, the speed of light
> as measured by you as you walk, the quantity you claim is c+v.

I would do the experiment exactly as outlined above,
Mr.Bodkin,and would certainly obtain the result c+v eh!

I realize that you Mr.Bodkin think that clocks tick slower,
and go out of sync., and meter rules shrink, as you walk
towards them, but i think that is really very silly Mr.Bodkin.

keith stein

[Dono,]

On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 4:08:03 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>

> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
> = L/(tB-tA) + v
> = c + v
>

> keith stein

Utter imbecile,

The above is not "the speed of light". It is "closing speed". An imbecile like you will never learn the difference.

[Paparios]

Another proof of your idiocy. Search for medical help! you badly need it!!

[Gary Harnagel]

On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 10:15:59 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 23/05/2019 12:18, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 11:15:58 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein lied:
> > >
> > > No the experimental result is 'c+v'..........etc.,etc......
> >

> > Lying does not become you. There are NO such experimental results.
>
> Try it yourself Gary. You will get c+v, same as everyone who doesthis
> experiment eh!
>
> keith stein

Nope. Never happens. And your baseless assertion that light travels at
c wrt a medium is refuted by the fact that the speed of light doesn't
partake of the speed of the solar wind.

[Odd Bodkin]

Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/05/2019 18:17, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> any determination of the one way speed of light in any
>>>>>>>>>>> laboratory.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A B
>>>>>>>>>>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>>>>>>>>>>> tA tB
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>>>>>>>>>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>>>>>>>>>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>>>>>>>>>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from
>>>>>>>>>>> A to B
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>>>>>>>>>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>>>>>>>>>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>>>>>>>>>> = c + v
>
>> Let’s see if you know what doing an experimental measurement means. How
>> about you explain how you would go about measuring c’, the speed of light
>> as measured by you as you walk, the quantity you claim is c+v.
>
> I would do the experiment exactly as outlined above,
> Mr.Bodkin,and would certainly obtain the result c+v eh!

Well, in that case you’re not making an experimental measurement. What you
described is not a measurement but a way of calculating a speed using a
Galilean transform. It sounds to me that you don’t really have a clear
thought about how to make that measurement without that.

>
> I realize that you Mr.Bodkin think that clocks tick slower,
> and go out of sync., and meter rules shrink, as you walk
> towards them, but i think that is really very silly Mr.Bodkin.

Well, whether you think it’s silly is irrelevant, Mr Stein. The question
is, what does a measurement show?

So, what you do NOT want to do is to *calculate* a speed assuming all the
things you think are not silly. What you want to do is to make a
measurement that makes neither the assumption of Galilean transforms nor
the assumption of Lorentz transforms. Do you have a thought as to how to do
that?

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Rave and spit, poor geocentrist idiot. You're
far too stupid for anything else, after all.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 23.05.2019 17.47, skrev Keith Stein:
>>> On 22/05/2019 19:35, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf >>
>

> Clearly you don't have even one experiment which shows the
> speed of light is independent of the speed of the OBSERVER,
> and if you perform the one i describe at the start of this
> post Paul, you will discover that it isn't.

Speed of the observer relative to what, Keith?

You know very well that the speed of the medium
relative to the observer is not added to the speed
of light in the medium measured by the observer.

https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf

You would not dream of accusing Michelson of fraud,
would you?

A ring laser gyroscope (RLG) would not work if
the speed of the medium was added to the speed
of light moving in the medium.
If you don't believe it, look up how a ring laser
gyro works.

A Fibre optic gyroscope (FIG) (very different from a RLG)
would not work if the speed of the medium was
added to the speed of light in the medium.
https://paulba.no/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf

This means that when the medium is moving relative
to the observer, the speed of light measured by
the observer is, as predicted by SR, given by the equation:
u = (c' + v)/(1 + (c'⋅v)/c²)
where
u is the speed of light relative to the observer
c' is the speed of light relative to the medium
v is the speed of the observer relative to the medium
That means that your claim:
u = c' + v
is experimentally falsified by thousands (millions?)
of FIGs and RLGs every day.


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Keith Stein]

[Odd Bodkin]

This is not a measurement of the speed of light in your frame. This is not
an experiment.

[Sylvia Else]

On 23/05/2019 4:43 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
> >>
> >>                   A                  B
> >>       light-----><--------L---------->         <--YOU v m/s
> >>                  tA                  tB
> >>
> >>    Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
> >>
> >>    Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
> >>    Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
> >>    and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
> >>    which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
> >>
> >>    Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time

> >>                                   = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)y

> >>                                   = L/(tB-tA) + v
> >>                                   = c + v
> >>
>

> On 22/05/2019 18:07, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>> Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> writes:
>
> Look ^^^ Three Wise Men, from the West. Maybe it's my birthday eh!
>  What gifts do they bring ???
>
>>>> It is OK with me. Many here are just for the fun of seeing people
>>>> like you
>>>> writing nonsense and making total fools of themselves.
>>>
>>> Very true. For some reason I also find it fascinating to watch the
>>> likes of
>>> Keith Stein make fools of themselves arguing about stuff they simply
>>> don't
>>> understand.
>>>
>> I think you will find that some people are here just for the oppositional
>> dialogue.
>
> No! No! No!, Mr.Bodkin, but then i should not be ungrateful eh!
> for my three gifts !!!.(and every one a gift beyond price.... :)
>
We prefer original nonsense, not just constant repetition of the same.

Sylvia

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Of course You do. That's why You're following Your
relativity. Nonsense it is, but an original one.

[Paul B. Andersen]

No comment to the posting you responded to, Keith?
Is it because it shows that your guess about
what would be the result of the experiment you
describe is wrong?

| Den 23.05.2019 17.47, skrev Keith Stein:
|>
|> Clearly you don't have even one experiment which shows the
|> speed of light is independent of the speed of the OBSERVER,
|> and if you perform the one i describe at the start of this
|> post Paul, you will discover that it isn't.

23.05.2019, Paul B. Andersen responded:

[Odd Bodkin]

Paul B. Andersen <relat...@paulba.no> wrote:
> Den 23.05.2019 22.00, skrev Keith Stein:
>>
>>> Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>>
>>>                   A                  B
>>>       light-----><--------L---------->         <--YOU v m/s
>>>                  tA                  tB
>>>
>>>    Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>>
>>>    Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>>    Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>>    and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>>    which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>>
>>>    Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>>                                   = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>>                                   = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>>                                   = c + v
>
> No comment to the posting you responded to, Keith?
> Is it because it shows that your guess about
> what would be the result of the experiment you
> describe is wrong?

Not to mention that what he proposes is not even an experimental
measurement. It’s a calculation using Galilean transformations. When he
proposes an actual measurement approach, we will have something to talk
about.

[Schäfer Brinkerhoff]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> No comment to the posting you responded to, Keith?
>> Is it because it shows that your guess about what would be the result
>> of the experiment you describe is wrong?
>
> Not to mention that what he proposes is not even an experimental
> measurement. It’s a calculation using Galilean transformations. When he
> proposes an actual measurement approach, we will have something to talk
> about.

Don't galilean me. Use GR in a proper "real" modeling situation of a
computer of your choice. Two subdomanins earth moon, submersed into a
empty spacetime. That "empty" has to have a structure, so your relativity
already fails. Now apply GR, push the start button, those subdomains will
start to "attract" and never to orbit. Case closed.

[Keith Stein]

On 23/05/2019 09:13, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23/05/2019 4:29 pm, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> All your analysis demonstrates is that if time and distance are frame
>>>> independent, then the speed of light is not.

That's true Sylvia. Although i would delete the "All",
and amend "distance" to "length" , so that it now reads:
" Your ......if time and length are frame independent,...."Because the
other thing my analysis demonstrated was that
"distance traveled" IS frame DEPENDENT.

>>>> Special relativity shows that if the speed of light is frame
>>>> independent, then time and distance are not.

That is true too, Sylvia, but surely Special relativity does MORE.
Special relativity actually ASSUMES that the speed of light IS frame
independent, which as you have now admitted, far from being an
"experimental fact", is actually an "IMPOSSIBILITY" within Newtonian
time, where t' = t .

>>>> Since these two statements do not contradict each other, nothing about
>>>> either one of them can tells us anything about the other.
>>>> Either one (or neither) could be a correct description of the universe
>>>> we live in. To decide which, we have to rely on experiments.
>>>> Experiments
>>>> indicate that the speed of light is frame independent,
>>
>>> No the experimental result , Sylvia, is   'c+v'
>>
>> Wrong. Experimental results are the results of experiments, eh!
>>
>> Experimental results are NOT what you think the results should be,
>> they are NOT the
>> 'result' of a flawed gedanken, nor the only result you think could be,
>> must be, want
>> it to be, has to be and so forth. They are the results of actual
>> experiments, no
>> more, no less.
>
> Further, his thought experiment could not produce the result he predicts
> even if he were right about the speed of light, and the experiment were
> done for real, because the proposed experimental protocol doesn't
> measure the things that would need to be measured.

Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that this
proposed experimental protocol DOES measure the things that would
need to be measured, and that it does demonstrate that the velocity of
light relative to YOU is necessarily 'c+v' NOT 'c'.

Now in witch year exactly would you say physicist rejected Newtonian
time, Sylvia?

Just for the record eh!

keith stein

[Sylvia Else]

On 25/05/2019 12:17 am, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 23/05/2019 09:13, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 23/05/2019 4:29 pm, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> All your analysis demonstrates is that if time and distance are frame
>>>>> independent, then the speed of light is not.
>
> That's true Sylvia. Although i would delete the "All",
> and amend "distance" to "length" , so that it now reads:
> " Your ......if time and length are frame independent,...."Because the
> other thing my analysis demonstrated was that
> "distance traveled" IS frame DEPENDENT.
>
>>>>> Special relativity shows that if the speed of light is frame
>>>>> independent, then time and distance are not.
>
> That is true too, Sylvia, but surely Special relativity does MORE.
> Special relativity actually ASSUMES that the speed of light IS frame
> independent, which as you have now admitted, far from being an
> "experimental fact", is actually an "IMPOSSIBILITY" within Newtonian
> time, where t' = t .

Special relativity is clearly inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics.
That's not news.

The constancy of the speed of light is an experimental result, not an
assumption. Since experiments always trump theories, any theory that is
inconsistent with the constancy of the speed of light is refuted. That
includes Newtonian mechanics.

>
>>>>> Since these two statements do not contradict each other, nothing about
>>>>> either one of them can tells us anything about the other.
>>>>> Either one (or neither) could be a correct description of the universe
>>>>> we live in. To decide which, we have to rely on experiments.
>>>>> Experiments
>>>>> indicate that the speed of light is frame independent,
>>>
>>>> No the experimental result , Sylvia, is   'c+v'
>>>
>>> Wrong. Experimental results are the results of experiments, eh!
>>>
>>> Experimental results are NOT what you think the results should be,
>>> they are NOT the
>>> 'result' of a flawed gedanken, nor the only result you think could
>>> be, must be, want
>>> it to be, has to be and so forth. They are the results of actual
>>> experiments, no
>>> more, no less.
>>
>> Further, his thought experiment could not produce the result he
>> predicts even if he were right about the speed of light, and the
>> experiment were done for real, because the proposed experimental
>> protocol doesn't measure the things that would need to be measured.
>
> Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that this
>  proposed experimental protocol    DOES  measure the things that would
> need to be measured, and that it does demonstrate that the velocity of
> light relative to YOU is necessarily   'c+v' NOT 'c'.

It would not have occurred to them that there was any question about
length and time, so they might have though that the outcome was so
obvious as not to be worth the experimental effort.

However, if I could travel back, and before presenting the proposed
protocol to them, invited them to consider, as a purely intellectual
exercise, that time and length might be frame dependent (expressed using
words suitable for the purpose at the time), then the capable ones would
immediately have seen that the proposed protocol was worthless, because
in that situation, to get a meaningful result, the measurements would
have to be done in the "You" frame.

Notice that I said "might be". I wouldn't be saying that they were frame
dependent, but these same capable people would see that the proposed
protocol is invalidated by the mere possibility of frame dependence.

I don't know why you resist this so much. If you're right, then doing
the measurements in the "You" frame won't make any difference, so what's
the objection?

>
> Now in witch year exactly would you say physicist rejected Newtonian
> time, Sylvia?
>

It clearly didn't happen at an exact time. After all, physicists are
individuals. Things were in a state of flux from the time of the
Michelson–Morley experiment until the eventual acceptance of special
relativity. There were probably some die-hards. Even today, not everyone
accepts it.

Sylvia.

[Keith Stein]

Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that the

proposed experimental protocol DOES measure the things that would
need to be measured, and that it does demonstrate that the velocity of

light relative to YOU is necessarily 'c+v' NOT 'c' Sylvia.

Now in witch year exactly would you say physicist rejected Newtonian

time, Dono ?

Just for the record eh!

keith stein

> On 23/05/2019 09:13, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 23/05/2019 4:29 pm, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> All your analysis demonstrates is that if time and distance are frame
>>>> independent, then the speed of light is not.

That's true Sylvia. Although i would delete the "All",
and amend "distance" to "length" , so that it now reads:
" Your ......if time and length are frame independent,...."Because the
other thing my analysis demonstrated was that
"distance traveled" IS frame DEPENDENT.

>>>> Special relativity shows that if the speed of light is frame
>>>> independent, then time and distance are not.

That is true too, Sylvia, but surely Special relativity does MORE.
Special relativity actually ASSUMES that the speed of light IS frame
independent, which as you have now admitted, far from being an
"experimental fact", is actually an "IMPOSSIBILITY" within Newtonian
time, where t' = t .

[Keith Stein]

On 24/05/2019 09:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 23.05.2019 22.00, skrev Keith Stein:
>>
>>  > Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>  >
>>  >                  A                  B
>>  >      light-----><--------L---------->         <--YOU v m/s
>>  >                 tA                  tB
>>  >
>>  >   Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>  >
>>  >   Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>  >   Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>  >   and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>  >   which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>  >
>>  >   Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>  >                                  = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>  >                                  = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>  >                                  = c + v
>
> No comment

On 23/05/2019 19:02, Dono, wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 4:08:03 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>

>> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>> = c + v
>>

>> keith stein
>
> Utter imbecile,
>
> The above is not "the speed of light". It is "closing speed". An imbecile like you will never learn the difference.

Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that the
proposed experimental protocol DOES measure the things that would
need to be measured, and that it does demonstrate that the velocity of
light relative to YOU is necessarily 'c+v' NOT 'c' Sylvia.

Now in witch year exactly would you say physicist rejected Newtonian

time, Mr.Andersen ?

[Sylvia Else]

On 25/05/2019 1:01 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that the
>  proposed experimental protocol

This is straight out of the Crank's playbook. Those physicists lived a
long time ago. Physics has moved on. Why should their alleged opinions
carry any weight?

Sylvia.

[Keith Stein]

On 23/05/2019 19:02, Dono, wrote:

Title:" Cretin Keith Stein can't tell the difference between
"spped (sic) of light" and "closing speed"

Guilty as charged Dono, although i would not agree that this
in itself qualifies me as a " Cretin ", or as an "imbecile" either eh!

keith stein

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 24 May 2019 16:58:56 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25/05/2019 12:17 am, Keith Stein wrote:
> > On 23/05/2019 09:13, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 23/05/2019 4:29 pm, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>> All your analysis demonstrates is that if time and distance are frame
> >>>>> independent, then the speed of light is not.
> >
> > That's true Sylvia. Although i would delete the "All",
> > and amend "distance" to "length" , so that it now reads:
> > " Your ......if time and length are frame independent,...."Because the
> > other thing my analysis demonstrated was that
> > "distance traveled" IS frame DEPENDENT.
> >
> >>>>> Special relativity shows that if the speed of light is frame
> >>>>> independent, then time and distance are not.
> >
> > That is true too, Sylvia, but surely Special relativity does MORE.
> > Special relativity actually ASSUMES that the speed of light IS frame
> > independent, which as you have now admitted, far from being an
> > "experimental fact", is actually an "IMPOSSIBILITY" within Newtonian
> > time, where t' = t .
>
> Special relativity is clearly inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics.
> That's not news.

More inconsistent than Euclidean geometry
with non-Euclidean geometry? Won't You
mumble about "false dichotomies" and
"different playgrounds" here?

[Keith Stein]

On 24/05/2019 12:00, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen <relat...@paulba.no> wrote:
>> Den 23.05.2019 22.00, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>
>>>> Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>>>
>>>>                   A                  B
>>>>       light-----><--------L---------->         <--YOU v m/s
>>>>                  tA                  tB
>>>>
>>>>    Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>>>
>>>>    Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>>>    Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>>>    and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>>>    which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>>>
>>>>    Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>>>                                   = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>>>                                   = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>>>                                   = c + v
>>
>> No comment to the posting you responded to, Keith?
>> Is it because it shows that your guess about
>> what would be the result of the experiment you
>> describe is wrong?
>
> Not to mention that what he proposes is not even an experimental
> measurement. It’s a calculation using Galilean transformations. When he
> proposes an actual measurement approach, we will have something to talk
> about.
>

Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that the

proposed experimental protocol DOES measure the things that would
need to be measured, and that it does demonstrate that the velocity of
light relative to YOU is necessarily 'c+v' NOT 'c' Sylvia.

Now in witch year exactly would you say physicist rejected Newtonian

time, Mr.Bodkin ?

Just for the record eh!

keith stein

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 24.05.2019 18.37, skrev Keith Stein:
>> Paul B. Andersen <relat...@paulba.no> wrote:

..what Keith found it necessary to snip:

[unsnip]

[unsnip end]

>>> Den 23.05.2019 22.00, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>>
>>>>> Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>>>>
>>>>>                    A                  B
>>>>>        light-----><--------L---------->         <--YOU v m/s
>>>>>                   tA                  tB
>>>>>
>>>>>     Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>>>>
>>>>>     Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>>>>     Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>>>>     and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>>>>     which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A
>>>>> to B
>>>>>
>>>>>     Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>>>>                                    = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>>>>                                    = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>>>>                                    = c + v
>>>
>>> No comment to the posting you responded to, Keith?
>>> Is it because it shows that your guess about
>>> what would be the result of the experiment you
>>> describe is wrong?

Still no comment, Keith?

Why is that?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 24.05.2019 17.06, skrev Keith Stein:
>> Den 23.05.2019 22.00, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>
>>>  > Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>>  >
>>>  >                  A                  B
>>>  >      light-----><--------L---------->         <--YOU v m/s
>>>  >                 tA                  tB
>>>  >
>>>  >   Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>>  >
>>>  >   Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>>>  >   Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>>>  >   and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>>>  >   which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A
>>> to B
>>>  >
>>>  >   Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>>  >                                  = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>>  >                                  = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>>  >                                  = c + v
>>
>

> Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that the
>  proposed experimental protocol    DOES  measure the things that would
> need to be measured, and that it does demonstrate that the velocity of
> light relative to YOU is necessarily   'c+v' NOT 'c' Sylvia.
>
> Now in witch year exactly would you say physicist rejected Newtonian
> time, Mr.Andersen ?
>
> Just for the record eh!

The physicist of the 19. century believed in Newtonian mechanics and
Galilean relativity with absolute time.

Am I to understand that you think that the beliefs of these
physicists prove SR and GR to be wrong? :-D

In that case I have to inform you that a high number of
experiments have proven that Galilean relativity is
falsified.

Here you will find some of them:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

And here is a couple of instruments that wouldn't work
if Galilean relativity applied in the real world:

A ring laser gyroscope (RLG) would not work if
the speed of the medium was added to the speed
of light moving in the medium.
If you don't believe it, look up how a ring laser
gyro works.

A Fibre optic gyroscope (FIG) (very different from a RLG)
would not work if the speed of the medium was
added to the speed of light in the medium.
https://paulba.no/pdf/fiber_optic_gyro.pdf

This means that when the medium is moving relative
to the observer, the speed of light measured by
the observer is, as predicted by SR, given by the equation:
u = (c' + v)/(1 + (c'⋅v)/c²)
where
u is the speed of light relative to the observer
c' is the speed of light relative to the medium
v is the speed of the observer relative to the medium
That means that your claim:
u = c' + v
is experimentally falsified by thousands (millions?)
of FIGs and RLGs every day.

Ooops, Keith.
You snipped this, didn't you? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Keith Stein]

That is certainly true, Mr.Andersen, but does not really answer my
question, for what i asked you was :"

>> Now in witch year exactly would you say physicist rejected Newtonian
>> time, Mr.Andersen ?

An expert like your good-self Mr.Andersen must surely be able to date
this "Revolution" from Newtonian time to bull shit time to much better
than the nearest century eh!

keith stein
Sorry, no time for anything else at the moment Paul.

[Dono,]

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 8:01:02 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> Now in witch year exactly would you say physicist rejected Newtonian
> time, Dono ?
>

1905, imbecile

[Dono,]

Qualifies you as BOTH

[Odd Bodkin]

Depends on the physicist, Mr Stein. A good number of them had given it up
by 1920. By the 1940s, almost all of them had given it up. Note that it is
now almost 80 years since that time. What’s your excuse?

>
> An expert like your good-self Mr.Andersen must surely be able to date
> this "Revolution" from Newtonian time to bull shit time to much better
> than the nearest century eh!
>
> keith stein
> Sorry, no time for anything else at the moment Paul.
>
>

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Imagination of a brainwashed fanatic moron. Nothing more.

> And here is a couple of instruments that wouldn't work
> if Galilean relativity applied in the real world:

Bullshit. Do you have any experimental evidence that
they wouldn't, poor idiot?

[beda pietanza]

There are three possible situations about the speed of light:
1)versus the source (independent of v of the source)
2)versus the medium (???)
3)versus the observer/receiver(dependent of the v of the receiver)

when you mention the medium in your gyroscope do you refer to the optical fiber?

thanks for the attention

regards
beda pietanza

[Keith Stein]

On 24/05/2019 16:54, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 23/05/2019 19:02, Dono, wrote:
>
>
> Title:" Cretin Keith Stein can't tell the difference between
>  "spped (sic) of light" and "closing speed"
>
> Guilty as charged Dono, although i would not agree that this
> in itself qualifies me as a " Cretin ", or as an "imbecile" either eh!
>
> keith stein
>
>
>> On Weydnesday, May 22, 2019 at 4:08:03 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>>    Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>>>                                   = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)
>>>                                   = L/(tB-tA) + v
>>>                                   = c + v
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>
>> Utter imbecile,
>>

On 24/05/2019 20:07, Dono, wrote:

> On Friday, May 24, Keith Stein wrote:
>>
>> Now in witch year exactly would you say physicist rejected Newtonian

>> time, Dono ?
>>
>
> 1905, imbecile
>

I agree Dono, prior to 1905 all physicists would of agreed with me that
the "closing speed" of A and B would be equal to "the speed of A in B's
frame of reference", both of which are equal to "the speed of B in A's
frame of reference.

In 1906 an unknown patent clerk writes a paper which only makes sense
if we REJECT Newton's view of Universal Time, accepted by all scientist
for centuries, before and after Newton, until this unknown failed
academic has this REVOLUTIONARY notion that the speed of light is
constant, FOR ALL OBSERVERS !



for Mr. Dono, i invite you once more to consider this argument:

>>
>> Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>>
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>

>> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time

>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)y

>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>> = c + v
>>

I can only say again......
I agree Dono, prior to 1905 all physicists would of agreed with me that
the "closing speed" of A and B would be equal to "the speed of A in B's
frame of reference", both of which are equal to "the speed of B in A's
frame of reference."


>
> 1905, imbecile
>

So you do agree with me Duno that prior to 1905 all scientists from
Newton to Maxwell would of agreed that my argument for 'c+v' given above
is correct. And if you do not agree then which line dp you think they
could possibly object to, Dono >

keith stein



keith stein

[Odd Bodkin]

No, Keith, they would not have. Because though that is the argument for
what you SHOULD get as a prediction of the theory, the truth would have to
come from measurement, not from argument. And the physicists before 1905
would have also said that the test of the argument is to actually MEASURE
it. That is, the argument does not stand on its own.

When you can come up hoe a Newtonian physicist would have gone about making
the MEASUREMENT then we will be in the path to a useful discussion.

> And if you do not agree then which line dp you think they
> could possibly object to, Dono >
>
> keith stein
>
>
>
> keith stein
>
>

[Keith Stein]

If you want to accept the notion of a 22 year old 3rd class patent
clerk, who has the impudence to reject the centuries old t' = t,
then you are following the wrong path Sylvia, but i can only tell you eh!

Keith

[Keith Stein]

On 24/05/2019 22:20, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24/05/2019 16:54, Keith Stein wrote:

>>> > FOR ALL OBSERVERS !

>>>> ....... i invite you once more to consider this argument:

You are wrong Mr.Bodkin. My argument is just a very simple application
of "The Vector Addition of Velocities", which was never believed as
the result of some "experiments". It was believed because the vector
addition of velocities was a consequence of Newtonian Space and Time.

And the physicists before 1905
> would have also said that the test of the argument is to actually MEASURE
> it. That is, the argument does not stand on its own.
>

Any that did measure it would have used the same technique as i did,
Mr.Bodkin, which means there is no need to measure it eh! :)

> When you can come up hoe a Newtonian physicist would have gone about making
> the MEASUREMENT then we will be in the path to a useful discussion.


And if you do not agree then which line dp you think they

could possibly object to, Mr.Bodkin ?

keith stein

[Odd Bodkin]

Keith, history is literally littered with young people who shocked the
scientific world by discarding a key assumption held for decades or
centuries previously, from Kepler to Galileo to Carnot to Boltzmann to
Einstein to Bohr to Dirac to Bohr.

We can talk for weeks about the various instances of this and how young,
impudent men shook things up, and how massive their revolutionary ideas
were.

Of course, if you have no problem with the others but have a special
disaffection for Einstein, who was really no more revolutionary or impudent
than the others, then there’s another hidden agenda involved.

[Odd Bodkin]

That is incorrect. Even that was tested in direct measurements, ranging
from ballistic trajectories in military applications to ocean travel on
oceanic currents.

It is simply not true that that principle was accepted on the basis of
argument. If you believe otherwise then your awareness of the historical
development of these ideas is severely lacking.

Newtonian physics was accepted because of experimental validation. At low
speeds.

> It was believed because the vector
> addition of velocities was a consequence of Newtonian Space and Time.
>
>
> And the physicists before 1905
>> would have also said that the test of the argument is to actually MEASURE
>> it. That is, the argument does not stand on its own.
>>
> Any that did measure it would have used the same technique as i did,

No sir. And it is plain that you don’t actually know how to do such a
measurement, other than by assuming some principle and applying it. How
would you go about TESTING the validity of the principle with a
measurement, Mr Stein?

> Mr.Bodkin, which means there is no need to measure it eh! :)
>
>> When you can come up hoe a Newtonian physicist would have gone about making
>> the MEASUREMENT then we will be in the path to a useful discussion.
>
>
> And if you do not agree then which line dp you think they
> could possibly object to, Mr.Bodkin ?

Again, I’m going to reiterate that a theory can be logically and
mathematically consistent and STILL WRONG. The fact that it’s wrong comes
from confrontation with MEASUREMENT. and if the measurement shows that it
is wrong it is still foolish to go back and look for the hole or the
mistake in the argument. Because being wrong does not imply that the
argument is flawed. However, it may well mean that nature simply does not
obey the assumptions you used in your argument.

The arbiter of truth in science is measurement. Not argument. Not self
consistency. Not intuitiveness. Not how many centuries old the idea is.

Period.

[Keith Stein]

I did not say that Newtonian physics was not tested by experiment

What i said was "

>> It was believed because the vector
>> addition of velocities was a consequence of Newtonian Space and Time.

No one tested the Vector Addition of Velocities by experiment, and if
you still claim it was Mr.Bodkin please tell us what was the accuracy
to which these experiments confirmed the vector addition of velocities,
and give a reference eh!

>> And the physicists before 1905
>>> would have also said that the test of the argument is to actually MEASURE
>>> it. That is, the argument does not stand on its own.
>>>
>> Any that did measure it would have used the same technique as i did,
>
> No sir. And it is plain that you don’t actually know how to do such a
> measurement, other than by assuming some principle and applying it. How
> would you go about TESTING the validity of the principle with a
> measurement, Mr Stein?

I asked exactly the same question myself to both Gary and Sylvia,
and they both came up with the daftest notion of walking about with
clocks in front of them. When challenged that this was completely
impractical, Sylvia admitted that it was. If i was to do it i would
time when the light arrived at A with a clock situated at A, and i
would time when the clock arrived at B with a clock situated at B eh!

That's how i'd do it Mr.Bodkin. How would you do it ?

keith stein

[Dono,]

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 2:22:07 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> If you want to accept the notion of a 22 year old 3rd class patent
> clerk, who has the impudence to reject the centuries old t' = t,
> then you are following the wrong path Sylvia, but i can only tell you eh!
>
> Keith

You have a hard on for Einstein, imbecile!

[Odd Bodkin]

I mentioned a couple. Pay attention. Cannon shell trajectories with cross
or angled winds are an excellent test of the vector addition of velocities.
And in fact the deviation of the expected landing point was the impetus for
the discovery of the Coriolis effect, Mr Stein, which you should
investigate. That too turns out to be a test of the vector addition of
velocities, but overlooked until observation made it clear something was
missing. These findings were in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

Of course, ballistic speeds are still low speeds.

>
>>> And the physicists before 1905
>>>> would have also said that the test of the argument is to actually MEASURE
>>>> it. That is, the argument does not stand on its own.
>>>>
>>> Any that did measure it would have used the same technique as i did,
>>
>> No sir. And it is plain that you don’t actually know how to do such a
>> measurement, other than by assuming some principle and applying it. How
>> would you go about TESTING the validity of the principle with a
>> measurement, Mr Stein?
>
> I asked exactly the same question myself to both Gary and Sylvia,

I’m asking you. If you don’t KNOW how to do the measurement other than by
assuming some principle, then you don’t know how to test that principle.
Just come out and say it.

> and they both came up with the daftest notion of walking about with
> clocks in front of them. When challenged that this was completely
> impractical, Sylvia admitted that it was. If i was to do it i would
> time when the light arrived at A with a clock situated at A, and i
> would time when the clock arrived at B with a clock situated at B eh!

I assume you mean light arrived at B.

That’s fine. So you want to measure a one way speed of light as it’s
approaching you. Are these two clocks at A and B at fixed distances from
you when you walk? Or are they anchored to the ground? It may make a
difference. Be careful about assumptions and make sure the arrangement most
cleanly measures what you want to measure without additional assumptions.
So answer those questions.

>
> That's how i'd do it Mr.Bodkin. How would you do it ?
>
> keith stein
>
>
>>> Mr.Bodkin, which means there is no need to measure it eh! :)
>>>
>>>> When you can come up hoe a Newtonian physicist would have gone about making
>>>> the MEASUREMENT then we will be in the path to a useful discussion.
>>>
>>>
>>> And if you do not agree then which line dp you think they
>>> could possibly object to, Mr.Bodkin ?
>>
>> Again, I’m going to reiterate that a theory can be logically and
>> mathematically consistent and STILL WRONG. The fact that it’s wrong comes
>> from confrontation with MEASUREMENT. and if the measurement shows that it
>> is wrong it is still foolish to go back and look for the hole or the
>> mistake in the argument. Because being wrong does not imply that the
>> argument is flawed. However, it may well mean that nature simply does not
>> obey the assumptions you used in your argument.
>>
>> The arbiter of truth in science is measurement. Not argument. Not self
>> consistency. Not intuitiveness. Not how many centuries old the idea is.
>>
>> Period.
>>
>>>
>>> keith stein
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Dono,]

On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 2:08:48 PM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
>
> So you do agree with me Duno that prior to 1905

The calendar reads 2019, utter cretin

[Sylvia Else]

Einstein's work stands on its own merits, and can be, and indeed should
be, judged only on its content, and not by reference to the person who
created it.

It is a pleasing result in its own way. Just as the Earth turned out not
to be the centre of the universe, and then the Sun turned out not to be,
Einstein's theory shows that there is no reason to suppose that there's
anything special about our speed through the universe. Only relative
velocities matter.

Sylvia.

[Keith Stein]

I am thinking that you and i mean something different by "the vector
addition of velocities",Mr.Bodkin, because no way could one test the
principle i am talking about that way. What i am talking about is:

"If A has a velocity VaB relative to B,
and B has a velocity VbC relative to C,
Then the velocity of A relative to C is
THE VECTOR ADDITION OF VaB AND VbC".

and this is a simple consequence of Newtonian Space and Time,
and was never a result from experimental measurements,Mr Bodkin.

> And in fact the deviation of the expected landing point was the impetus for
> the discovery of the Coriolis effect, Mr Stein, which you should
> investigate. That too turns out to be a test of the vector addition of
> velocities, but overlooked until observation made it clear something was
> missing. These findings were in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.

In the case of the Coriolis effect what they discovered was that their
"inertial" frame of reference was not "inertial" because the Earth was
rotating, but for sure the vector addition of velocities would always
survive and such tests.


keith stein

[Keith Stein]

On 24/05/2019 22:57, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24/05/2019 16:21, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 25/05/2019 1:01 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that the
>>>>   proposed experimental protocol
>>>
>>> This is straight out of the Crank's playbook. Those physicists lived a
>>> long time ago. Physics has moved on. Why should their alleged opinions
>>> carry any weight?
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> If you want to accept the notion of a 22 year old 3rd class patent
>> clerk, who has the impudence to reject the centuries old t' = t,
>> then you are following the wrong path Sylvia, but i can only tell you eh!
>>
>> Keith
>>
>
>
> Keith, history is literally littered with young people who shocked the
> scientific world by discarding a key assumption held for decades or
> centuries previously, from Kepler to Galileo to Carnot to Boltzmann to
> Einstein to Bohr to Dirac to Bohr.

Not to mention Giordano Bruno, who realized that the sun was just
another star in a sort of lumpy porridge of a Universe, which is
pretty much how i see it myself. Indeed i would point out that
"lumpy porridge" is my own description, not a "quote" from the
ill fated Giordano Bruno eh!

>
> We can talk for weeks about the various instances of this and how young,
> impudent men shook things up, and how massive their revolutionary ideas
> were.

And these days it gets them a Nobel prize. Not what Bruno got for his
insights.

> Of course, if you have no problem with the others but have a special
> disaffection for Einstein, who was really no more revolutionary or impudent
> than the others, then there’s another hidden agenda involved.

The twenty something year old patent clerk 3rd class, "invented" the
Special Theory of Relativity, a theory which is simply WRONG, in the
then current Newtonian Space and Time. So Einstein's revolutionary
idea was to change the definitions in such a way that ensured the
speed of light was always the same, relative to ALL frames of reference!
A preposterous idea for any Newtonian physicist, because it violates
the VECTOR ADDITION OF VELOCITIES:

>

>>
>> Any determination of the one way speed of light in any laboratory.
>>
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>>
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>
>> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance / Time
>> = L + v*(tB - tA) / (tB -tA)y
>> = L/(tB-tA) + v
>> = c + v

keith stein

>>

[Sylvia Else]

On 25/05/2019 8:18 am, Keith Stein wrote:

> I asked exactly the same question myself to both Gary and Sylvia,
> and they both came up with the daftest notion of walking about with
> clocks in front of them. When challenged that this was completely
> impractical, Sylvia admitted that it was.

You do like to leave out significant details, don't you. I said that the
experiment as originally proposed was impractical as well.

And you like to misrepresent things. I only said that the clocks should
be stationary in the "You" frame. Nothing about being "in front", unless
you just mean that that are - as are your clocks in the laboratory frame.

> If i was to do it i would
> time when the light arrived at A with a clock situated at A, and i
> would time when the clock arrived at B with a clock situated at B eh!

Suppose someone says "Um, I'm not sure. If I had two clocks moving with
me so that they arrived at A and B just as the light passed, would those
clocks give the same result?"

What line of argument are you going to use to convince them that it
would? If it would help you to remain civil, imagine it's Newton you're
trying to convince. He'll want more than hand-waving and assumptions.

Sylvia.

[Keith Stein]

On 25/05/2019 02:57, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25/05/2019 7:22 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 24/05/2019 16:21, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 25/05/2019 1:01 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that the
>>>>   proposed experimental protocol
>>>
>>> This is straight out of the Crank's playbook.

This is not true Sylvia, it is a very reasonable response to your
baseless allegation that the

> proposed experimental protocol doesn't measure the things that would
> need to be measured.

to witch i replied:

"Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that this

proposed experimental protocol DOES measure the things that would
need to be measured, and that it does demonstrate that the velocity of

light relative to YOU is necessarily 'c+v' NOT 'c'."

>>> Those physicists lived
>>> a long time ago. Physics has moved on. Why should their alleged
>>> opinions carry any weight?
>>>

>> If you want to accept the notion of a 22 year old 3rd class patent
>> clerk, who has the impudence to reject the centuries old t' = t,
>> then you are following the wrong path Sylvia, but i can only tell you eh!

> Einstein's work stands on its own merits, and can be, and indeed should
> be, judged only on its content, and not by reference to the person who
> created it.
>
> It is a pleasing result in its own way.

To an old classical physicist. like myself, Sylvia,
it was, and remains, a ridiculous theory,
but if clocks on the ISS really do loose 25us/day,
then i'm wrong, and relativity is right,so i say
"LET EXPERIMENT DECIDE" eh!

keith stein

[Odd Bodkin]

This is very testable.

You have, I presume, a way of directly measuring Vab. Do you not? And you
also have a way of directly measuring Vbc. Then you must also have a way of
directly measuring Vac. Is this not so? And then do you not have a way to
experimentally check whether that measured Vac is in fact the vector sum of
Vab and Vbc?

I’m frankly astonished you think this is just something you have to choose
to believe.

>
> and this is a simple consequence of Newtonian Space and Time,
> and was never a result from experimental measurements,Mr Bodkin.
>
>> And in fact the deviation of the expected landing point was the impetus for
>> the discovery of the Coriolis effect, Mr Stein, which you should
>> investigate. That too turns out to be a test of the vector addition of
>> velocities, but overlooked until observation made it clear something was
>> missing. These findings were in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.
>
> In the case of the Coriolis effect what they discovered was that their
> "inertial" frame of reference was not "inertial" because the Earth was
> rotating, but for sure the vector addition of velocities would always
> survive and such tests.

That’s not historically how it was uncovered. Read up on the observational
data.

[Odd Bodkin]

Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/05/2019 22:57, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keiths...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 24/05/2019 16:21, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 25/05/2019 1:01 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that the
>>>>>   proposed experimental protocol
>>>>
>>>> This is straight out of the Crank's playbook. Those physicists lived a
>>>> long time ago. Physics has moved on. Why should their alleged opinions
>>>> carry any weight?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> If you want to accept the notion of a 22 year old 3rd class patent
>>> clerk, who has the impudence to reject the centuries old t' = t,
>>> then you are following the wrong path Sylvia, but i can only tell you eh!
>>>
>>> Keith
>>>
>>
>>
>> Keith, history is literally littered with young people who shocked the
>> scientific world by discarding a key assumption held for decades or
>> centuries previously, from Kepler to Galileo to Carnot to Boltzmann to
>> Einstein to Bohr to Dirac to Bohr.
>
> Not to mention Giordano Bruno, who realized that the sun was just
> another star in a sort of lumpy porridge of a Universe, which is
> pretty much how i see it myself. Indeed i would point out that
> "lumpy porridge" is my own description, not a "quote" from the
> ill fated Giordano Bruno eh!

The difference is that the people I mentioned all had their ideas validated
by observation.

You see, it’s not the idea that matters. It’s the experimentally checked
idea.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 24.05.2019 21.03, skrev Keith Stein:
> On 24/05/2019 19:36, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 24.05.2019 17.06, skrev Keith Stein:
>>>
>>>
>>> Now in witch year exactly would you say physicist rejected Newtonian
>>> time, Mr.Andersen ?
>>>
>>> Just for the record eh!
>>
>> The physicist of the 19. century believed in Newtonian mechanics and
>> Galilean relativity with absolute time.

[everything I wrote was snipped] !

[unsnip]

>> Ooops, Keith.
>> You snipped this, didn't you?

[unsnip end]

I was right, wasn't I? :-D

But why do you ask the same question again when
you snipped my answer?

>
> That is certainly true, Mr.Andersen, but does not really answer my
> question, for what i asked you was :"
>
> >> Now in witch year exactly would you say physicist rejected Newtonian
> >> time, Mr.Andersen ?
>
> An expert like your good-self Mr.Andersen must surely be able to date
> this "Revolution" from Newtonian time to bull shit time to much better
> than the nearest century eh!

The answer should be evident if you read what you snipped.
A theory of physics is 'rejected' when it is falsified by
experimental evidence. Read below to see when that happened.

I have to inform you that a high number of

experiments have falsified Galilean relativity.

But you will snip it again, without comment, won't you? :-D
That will make the experimental evidence go away, don't you think?
Or do you think? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[kenseto]

So why did physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly?

[maluw...@gmail.com]

Yeah. By observation Galileo has imagined and described in
a Holy Book.

[Sylvia Else]

On 25/05/2019 10:47 pm, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 25/05/2019 02:57, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 25/05/2019 7:22 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> On 24/05/2019 16:21, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 25/05/2019 1:01 am, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that the
>>>>>   proposed experimental protocol
>>>>
>>>> This is straight out of the Crank's playbook.
>
> This is not true Sylvia, it is a very reasonable response to your
> baseless allegation that the
>
> > proposed experimental protocol doesn't measure the things that would
> > need to be measured.
>
> to witch i replied:
>
> "Physicists from Newton to Maxwell would certainly have agreed that this
>  proposed experimental protocol    DOES  measure the things that would
> need to be measured, and that it does demonstrate that the velocity of
> light relative to YOU is necessarily   'c+v' NOT 'c'."

They're dead. We can't determine what they would have thought then, nor
what they might think now with the benefit of the research that's been
done in the mean time. Claiming that they would have supported your view
doesn't really advance your position, because it's not something we can
test.

>
> To an old classical physicist. like myself, Sylvia,
> it was, and remains, a ridiculous theory,
> but if clocks on the ISS really do loose 25us/day,
> then i'm wrong, and relativity is right,so i say
> "LET EXPERIMENT DECIDE" eh!
>
> keith stein
>

I do not believe that you will accept any experiment that contradicts
your current belief. You'll just say it was fraudulent, or incompetently
done, or somehow doesn't quite meet your previously unstated
requirements for a valid demonstration.

Sylvia.

[maluw...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 25 May 2019 15:15:45 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> The answer should be evident if you read what you snipped.
> A theory of physics is 'rejected' when it is falsified by
> experimental evidence.

A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. A theory
in physics is rejected ehen gurus don't like
it.

> I have to inform you that a high number of
> experiments have falsified Galilean relativity.

Not surprising, as it was constructed with
Galileo's gedankens lacking any contact with
the reality.

> And here is a couple of instruments that wouldn't work
> if Galilean relativity applied in the real world:

A lie, of course. Do you have any experiments
"confirming" that they wouldn't?

> This means that when the medium is moving relative
> to the observer, the speed of light measured by
> the observer is, as predicted by SR, given by the equation:
> u = (c' + v)/(1 + (c'⋅v)/c²)
> where
> u is the speed of light relative to the observer
> c' is the speed of light relative to the medium
> v is the speed of the observer relative to the medium
> That means that your claim:
> u = c' + v
> is experimentally falsified by thousands (millions?)
> of FIGs and RLGs every day.

No, it isn't. You're enchanting the reality, as
expected from a fanatc halfbrain.